My theory is that y'all want this forum closed. Or it's performance art.

Hardly trying to get anything closed down, just wish there could be a discussion about anything on this board without the most prolific posters on the liberal side treating anyone who disagrees with them like a 2 year old they need to talk down to and be condescending as possible to. I makes the board a very unwelcome place to post at. Its the main reason this board is as slow as it is.

My theory is that y'all want this forum closed. Or it's performance art.

Hardly trying to get anything closed down, just wish there could be a discussion about anything on this board without the most prolific posters on the liberal side treating anyone who disagrees with them like a 2 year old they need to talk down to and be condescending as possible to. I makes the board a very unwelcome place to post at. Its the main reason this board is as slow as it is.

Honestly, brett, do you think you should throw the first stone?

Quote

Its not possible to enlighten you on anything, so I am not going to bother trying anymore.

My theory is that y'all want this forum closed. Or it's performance art.

Hardly trying to get anything closed down, just wish there could be a discussion about anything on this board without the most prolific posters on the liberal side treating anyone who disagrees with them like a 2 year old they need to talk down to and be condescending as possible to. I makes the board a very unwelcome place to post at. Its the main reason this board is as slow as it is.

I don't know whether or not Mr. Fed was including me in "y'all," but I have no doubt you're including me as one of "the most prolific posters on the liberal side."

I've made two previous posts in this thread, brettmcd: one in which I asked you, cheeba, or msduncan to provide examples of where McCain's policies differ from Bush's, and a second later in which I pointed out that your continuing inability to offer up any facts left you with only one honorable recourse: apologize for your behavior.

msduncan made a specific accusation that the Obama campaign was misrepresenting McCain's policy positions. Asking him to explain the basis of that complaint is not condescending. Pointing out that he, and you, and cheeba have still failed to even *try* after two days is not treating you like 2-year-olds -- it's giving you a chance to justify your behavior like three adults.

That offer still stands, by the way. I'm ready to read all about McCain's un-Bush policies any time you're ready to post them. Short of that -- or an apology for making such a baseless accusation in the first place -- what are you hoping to accomplish in this thread?

My theory is that y'all want this forum closed. Or it's performance art.

Hardly trying to get anything closed down, just wish there could be a discussion about anything on this board without the most prolific posters on the liberal side treating anyone who disagrees with them like a 2 year old they need to talk down to and be condescending as possible to. I makes the board a very unwelcome place to post at. Its the main reason this board is as slow as it is.

Honestly, brett, do you think you should throw the first stone?

Quote

Its not possible to enlighten you on anything, so I am not going to bother trying anymore.

Brendan is someone I dont discuss issues with anymore, he has shown over and over in countless threads that he has no interest in doing so with me and only wants to talk down to me. How I treat him is a direct result of those threads.

My theory is that y'all want this forum closed. Or it's performance art.

Hardly trying to get anything closed down, just wish there could be a discussion about anything on this board without the most prolific posters on the liberal side treating anyone who disagrees with them like a 2 year old they need to talk down to and be condescending as possible to. I makes the board a very unwelcome place to post at. Its the main reason this board is as slow as it is.

I don't know whether or not Mr. Fed was including me in "y'all," but I have no doubt you're including me as one of "the most prolific posters on the liberal side."

I've made two previous posts in this thread, brettmcd: one in which I asked you, cheeba, or msduncan to provide examples of where McCain's policies differ from Bush's, and a second later in which I pointed out that your continuing inability to offer up any facts left you with only one honorable recourse: apologize for your behavior.

msduncan made a specific accusation that the Obama campaign was misrepresenting McCain's policy positions. Asking him to explain the basis of that complaint is not condescending. Pointing out that he, and you, and cheeba have still failed to even *try* after two days is not treating you like 2-year-olds -- it's giving you a chance to justify your behavior like three adults.

That offer still stands, by the way. I'm ready to read all about McCain's un-Bush policies any time you're ready to post them. Short of that -- or an apology for making such a baseless accusation in the first place -- what are you hoping to accomplish in this thread?

My theory is that y'all want this forum closed. Or it's performance art.

Hardly trying to get anything closed down, just wish there could be a discussion about anything on this board without the most prolific posters on the liberal side treating anyone who disagrees with them like a 2 year old they need to talk down to and be condescending as possible to. I makes the board a very unwelcome place to post at. Its the main reason this board is as slow as it is.

Honestly, brett, do you think you should throw the first stone?

Quote

Its not possible to enlighten you on anything, so I am not going to bother trying anymore.

Brendan is someone I dont discuss issues with anymore, he has shown over and over in countless threads that he has no interest in doing so with me and only wants to talk down to me. How I treat him is a direct result of those threads.

So your only purpose was to tell him that you wouldn't be telling him anything?

Its not possible to enlighten you on anything, so I am not going to bother trying anymore.

Honestly, do you think that's really an insult? I think that was a pretty solid reason for him to back out of the thread, which he did. Why should he attempt to prove something because someone with a history of personal insults and a total lack of an open mind dares him to?

I've made two previous posts in this thread, brettmcd: one in which I asked you, cheeba, or msduncan to provide examples of where McCain's policies differ from Bush's, and a second later in which I pointed out that your continuing inability to offer up any facts left you with only one honorable recourse: apologize for your behavior.

If your nose were any further up Brendan's ass you'd be able to clean the food from his teeth.

It seems to me that this little debate could be settled awfully quickly if you guys simply started listing all the major policy positions where John McCain differs from George W. Bush. I wonder why you haven't.

Because you are completely and totally wrong.

Prove it.

msduncan accused the Obama campaign of "misrepresenting" John McCain's platform as being nothing but Bush's third term. Brendan responded by posting a link to a long list of policy positions which McCain has flip-flopped on, each cross-referenced with their source, and each bringing him into lock-step with Bush. Since then, you and brettmcd have complained, attacked Brendan, and stated again and again that he's obviously wrong...but 24-hours later, you still haven't offered even one bit of dissenting evidence.

This leaves you with three options:

1) Prove it, which I don't think you can,

2) Apologize and admit you're way, way out of line, or

3) Brag some more about how two seconds in Google would, like, totally prove you right, wait for a good opportunity to quietly duck out of the thread, and pretend that making bold and confident assertions is somehow a good substitute for simple facts.

I can't wait to see which one you guys pick.

-Autistic Angel

Ah ok well I think I've found the disconnect.

Some of you are asking us to prove that John McCain has been misrepresented by Obama as being Bush's third term.I'm telling you that as a conservative, I don't trust John McCain to be anything like what he's representing himself as at the moment. I believe he will be much like the John McCain he has been since we all knew him in the 90's.

The difference here is that liberals step to the middle in this country during a campaign. Moderate Republicans step toward the right. It's generally been this way (see HW Bush). So you are asking us to prove something that we don't have any real evidence of other than John McCain's traditional disagreements and pissing off of righties like myself. I'm telling you that I don't really like the guy because I know based on history what he's going to be like when he gets in there. And I believe that is Obama lite.

The difference here is that liberals step to the middle in this country during a campaign. Moderate Republicans step toward the right.

Historically, both candidates separate (left further to the left, right further to the right) to get the nomination, and then gravitate towards the center all the way up to the election, often becoming nearly indistinguishable from the other.

Quote

So you are asking us to prove something that we don't have any real evidence of other than John McCain's traditional disagreements and pissing off of righties like myself.

That's kinda the point: he has had disagreements and pissed off righties like yourself and Bush. As for evidence, we have plenty - look at the legislation which McCain is perhaps best known for: McCain-Feingold. Bush signed it, but he sure didn't much like it. Bush didn't even have McCain come to the signing ceremony.

That's kinda the point: he has had disagreements and pissed off righties like yourself and Bush. As for evidence, we have plenty - look at the legislation which McCain is perhaps best known for: McCain-Feingold. Bush signed it, but he sure didn't much like it. Bush didn't even have McCain come to the signing ceremony.

Some of you are asking us to prove that John McCain has been misrepresented by Obama as being Bush's third term.I'm telling you that as a conservative, I don't trust John McCain to be anything like what he's representing himself as at the moment. I believe he will be much like the John McCain he has been since we all knew him in the 90's.

It's fine of you to feel that way - suspicious, alienated, whatever. However, McCain's stated policy positions, at least today, are exceedingly similar to those of President Bush. That's what the Obama campaign is comparing - they can't predict whether or not he's being sincere.

Oh look, it's not good enough for you, how surprising, lol. He actually passes some campaign finance reform legislation, the first in 30 years, disliked so much by the President that he didn't even invite the sponsors for the typical ceremony, and that's not good enough for you. How about his differing views on the environment? Nuclear proliferation?

And yet, all politicians weasel. McCain is a politician. He is apt to change his positions to best get the legislation he wants through. If not continuing sponsorship of new campaign finance reform helps him become president, that's what he's going to do. Obama is the same way. Just look at his recent flip-flop on public financing and his weaselly ways around accepting lobby money.

Some of you are asking us to prove that John McCain has been misrepresented by Obama as being Bush's third term.I'm telling you that as a conservative, I don't trust John McCain to be anything like what he's representing himself as at the moment. I believe he will be much like the John McCain he has been since we all knew him in the 90's.

It's fine of you to feel that way - suspicious, alienated, whatever. However, McCain's stated policy positions, at least today, are exceedingly similar to those of President Bush. That's what the Obama campaign is comparing - they can't predict whether or not he's being sincere.

I know what his stated policy positions are. I just don't believe him.

Hey, I understand why you're running away from a discussion of this - it's because there aren't any consequential differences between their policies beyond the near-trivialities I've already mentioned. Congressional Quarterly, a non-partisan source, has McCain voting with Bush 95% of the time in 2007 and 100% of the time thus far in 2008 (for the votes he's actually showed up for - both he and Obama have missed a large number of them while campaigning). You're running away because people are afraid that McCain is more of the same, a fear bourne out by his current platform.

It's a shame, because I once met McCain in the hallway outside my office a few years ago - he was genial and authentic, and I can see why he's popular with the press at his barbeques. At the time, he really did have some ideas that, while not exactly revolutionary, weren't just rubber stamps of the typical right wing agenda. Things like supporting the estate tax, opposing the Bush tax cuts, and supporting campaign finance reform. It's tragic that he's had to subvert his own legislation to be acceptable as the republican presidential candidate.

This is one of the very few posts in this thread that actually contributes something to the debate. I'm honestly not sure how anyone can look at McCain's voting record over the last couple of years and not recognize him as someone that is very conservative. He deviates from the Bush/conservative viewpoint on a very small number of issues and yet the media somehow takes that as a reason to call him a maverick. By that reasoning, my opposition to gun control makes me a a middle-of-the-road-moderate-maverick.

McCain is not a maverick -- he's 95% George Bush clone and 5% liberal. In my book that would make a McCain presidency effectively a third Bush term.

Hey, I understand why you're running away from a discussion of this - it's because there aren't any consequential differences between their policies beyond the near-trivialities I've already mentioned. Congressional Quarterly, a non-partisan source, has McCain voting with Bush 95% of the time in 2007 and 100% of the time thus far in 2008 (for the votes he's actually showed up for - both he and Obama have missed a large number of them while campaigning). You're running away because people are afraid that McCain is more of the same, a fear bourne out by his current platform.

It's a shame, because I once met McCain in the hallway outside my office a few years ago - he was genial and authentic, and I can see why he's popular with the press at his barbeques. At the time, he really did have some ideas that, while not exactly revolutionary, weren't just rubber stamps of the typical right wing agenda. Things like supporting the estate tax, opposing the Bush tax cuts, and supporting campaign finance reform. It's tragic that he's had to subvert his own legislation to be acceptable as the republican presidential candidate.

This is one of the very few posts in this thread that actually contributes something to the debate. I'm honestly not sure how anyone can look at McCain's voting record over the last couple of years and not recognize him as someone that is very conservative. He deviates from the Bush/conservative viewpoint on a very small number of issues and yet the media somehow takes that as a reason to call him a maverick. By that reasoning, my opposition to gun control makes me a a middle-of-the-road-moderate-maverick.

McCain is not a maverick -- he's 95% George Bush clone and 5% liberal. In my book that would make a McCain presidency effectively a third Bush term.

One thing he does have similar to Bush I will admit is niether of them are conservatives. That much of a similarity I will accept, its the main reason I have no use for either of them.

Oh look, it's not good enough for you, how surprising, lol. He actually passes some campaign finance reform legislation, the first in 30 years, disliked so much by the President that he didn't even invite the sponsors for the typical ceremony, and that's not good enough for you.

The entire issue we're discussing here is that McCain doesn't deviate much from Bush politically anymore. As I mentioned up-thread, he once did. He no longer does. In one of the links I already provided you, there are details of numerous bills that he sponsored that he's now rejecting in favor of Bush-style policies. It's not that his previous campaign finance reform efforts "aren't good enough" for me; I applaud attempts to remove big lobbyist money from national politics. It's that he's not the guy he was - he's reinvented himself as someone who'll continue the status quo.

Quote from: cheepa

How about his differing views on the environment? Nuclear proliferation?

I assume this is your source material for this claim, given your wording.

The two aren't actually far apart on environmental issues - McCain now supports drilling off the coast of Florida, which is unpopular down there. He rejects Kyoto, just like El Presidente, and he voted to allow drilling in ANWR, just like Bush wants.

So, McCain shares immigration policy, an energy policy, a tax policy, anti-abortion policy, military/war policy, and more with Bush, and deviates slightly from this orthodoxy in wanting to reduce the number of nukes in Europe and implementing a weak cap-and-trade program, and you expect us to believe that McCain's not more of the same?

I'm honestly not sure how anyone can look at McCain's voting record over the last couple of years and not recognize him as someone that is very conservative. He deviates from the Bush/conservative viewpoint on a very small number of issues and yet the media somehow takes that as a reason to call him a maverick.

Entirely, it seems, on the strength of his previous branding from back when he actually was a maverick. The media loves pre-packaged memes and they've always been McCain friendly because he's got a good back story (and, well, he hooks them up.)

Wonder if anything has changed to make him adjust his opinion? Like maybe the price of gas?

Quote

He rejects Kyoto, just like El Presidente

You're referring to President Clinton as El Presidente now? Any American politician worth his salt would reject Kyoto. Shit, and Obama of course supports Kyoto, wtf. Wonder if this is one of his real positions or one of the fake ones, like being against NAFTA? If it's real then there's no way I can vote for him now, ugh.

Quote

So, McCain shares ... military/war policy

McCain wanted the troop surge before Bush did. McCain has been very critical of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld throughout the Iraq conflict.

Quote

you expect us to believe that McCain's not more of the same?

I expect you to believe whatever Obama or the left spoon feeds you, and you've not disappointed there.

Cheeba, the discussion is about which ways McCain's policies as President would differ from those of the current occupant. If you compare their stated policy positions, as of today, they don't deviate in any consequential ways. Whether McCain changed his perspectives from political triangulation or honest re-evaluation, the end result is parity with an unsuccessful President.

Again, if you have something to contribute to a meaningful discussion, please do - otherwise, you're just trolling.

It seems to me that this little debate could be settled awfully quickly if you guys simply started listing all the major policy positions where John McCain differs from George W. Bush. I wonder why you haven't.

Because you are completely and totally wrong.

Prove it.

msduncan accused the Obama campaign of "misrepresenting" John McCain's platform as being nothing but Bush's third term. Brendan responded by posting a link to a long list of policy positions which McCain has flip-flopped on, each cross-referenced with their source, and each bringing him into lock-step with Bush. Since then, you and brettmcd have complained, attacked Brendan, and stated again and again that he's obviously wrong...but 24-hours later, you still haven't offered even one bit of dissenting evidence.

This leaves you with three options:

1) Prove it, which I don't think you can,

2) Apologize and admit you're way, way out of line, or

3) Brag some more about how two seconds in Google would, like, totally prove you right, wait for a good opportunity to quietly duck out of the thread, and pretend that making bold and confident assertions is somehow a good substitute for simple facts.

I can't wait to see which one you guys pick.

-Autistic Angel

Ah ok well I think I've found the disconnect.

Some of you are asking us to prove that John McCain has been misrepresented by Obama as being Bush's third term.I'm telling you that as a conservative, I don't trust John McCain to be anything like what he's representing himself as at the moment. I believe he will be much like the John McCain he has been since we all knew him in the 90's.

The difference here is that liberals step to the middle in this country during a campaign. Moderate Republicans step toward the right. It's generally been this way (see HW Bush). So you are asking us to prove something that we don't have any real evidence of other than John McCain's traditional disagreements and pissing off of righties like myself. I'm telling you that I don't really like the guy because I know based on history what he's going to be like when he gets in there. And I believe that is Obama lite.

Thank you for the clarification. Mistrusting a candidate because his current positions are at sharp odds with one he held only a couple years ago strikes me as a perfectly reasonable concern.

I also happen to agree that John McCain would probably put an end to many of the Bush policies he currently claims to support. Torture is one example -- I simply cannot believe that a man who has personally endured that sort of savagery could condone his own country resorting to its use. I absolutely would have voted for John McCain if he'd been the Republican nominee in 2000, and if that same man were running today, he might well have my support.

Unfortunately, McCain either genuinely believes that President Bush's policies have been working out really well these last seven years, or he's repeatedly and aggressively lying about his own principles for the sake of political expedience. A critical failure of judgement or a critical failure of integrity? Either way, that isn't the man I used to admire in 2000, nor a candidate I can envision myself supporting in 2008.

Quote from: msduncan

I know what [McCain's] stated policy positions are. I just don't believe him.

It seems to me that a "far left" candidate would be vowing to yank all the troops out of Iraq as his first act in office, calling for an immediate war crimes tribunal against members of the Bush administration, nattering on about how 9/11 was a secret conspiracy cooked up by Karl Rove and Dick Cheney, etc.

What is it about Barack Obama that strikes you as "far left" instead of simply "left?" I'm not trying to pin you down on semantics -- I'm just curious which issues you think he's "going too far" on.

It seems to me that a "far left" candidate would be vowing to yank all the troops out of Iraq as his first act in office, calling for an immediate war crimes tribunal against members of the Bush administration, nattering on about how 9/11 was a secret conspiracy cooked up by Karl Rove and Dick Cheney, etc.

What is it about Barack Obama that strikes you as "far left" instead of simply "left?" I'm not trying to pin you down on semantics -- I'm just curious which issues you think he's "going too far" on.

I think this is a case of the Overton window that covers our political discourse having shifted so far to the right (mostly through the concerted media push that the Republicans have made for the last twenty years) that principles that were merely "progressive" or "liberal" thirty years ago are now described as "far left".

Again, if you have something to contribute to a meaningful discussion, please do - otherwise, you're just trolling.

This is why it was said before in the thread that it is useless to attempt to talk to you about anything. You are so apeshit into the kool-aid that you've actually rationalized to yourself that McCain's career in politics isn't relevant. I shouldn't have even made the attempt, but oh well, the lesson is learned yet again.

I think this is a case of the Overton window that covers our political discourse having shifted so far to the right (mostly through the concerted media push that the Republicans have made for the last twenty years) that principles that were merely "progressive" or "liberal" thirty years ago are now described as "far left".

Again, if you have something to contribute to a meaningful discussion, please do - otherwise, you're just trolling.

This is why it was said before in the thread that it is useless to attempt to talk to you about anything. You are so apeshit into the kool-aid that you've actually rationalized to yourself that McCain's career in politics isn't relevant. I shouldn't have even made the attempt, but oh well, the lesson is learned yet again.

Cheeba, I'm trying to have sympathy for you here, but as of yet I haven't seen anything substantive from you on this question of how McCain and Bush would be any different as President. Do you think there are policy differences? If so, what are they? No personal attacks going on here or name calling. I am just one of the thread lurkers waiting for someone to make the distinction between Bush and McCain.

Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Cheeba, I'm trying to have sympathy for you here, but as of yet I haven't seen anything substantive from you on this question of how McCain and Bush would be any different as President.

No need for sympathy (smilie goes here but smilies are broken, lol). But I'm not a fortune teller. I have no idea how they would be. All I can do is look at their history, and McCain has a history of not matching Bush on many things, from the environment to McCain wanting less conservative Supreme Court justices to campaign finance reform, to the way the Iraq war has been run.

As we get closer to the election, McCain is going to become more and more centrist, as Bush did, thus it will muddy the waters even more. Obama will do the same and will be indistinguishable from nearly any democratic presidential candidate.

I--the fact is that I'm different but the fact is that I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement and support of President Bush. So have we had some disagreements on some issues, the bulk--particularly domestic issues? Yes. But I will argue my conservative record voting with anyone's, and I will also submit that my support for President Bush has been active and very impassioned on issues that are important to the American people. And I'm particularly talking about the war on terror, the war in Iraq, national security, national defense, support of men and women in the military, fiscal discipline, a number of other issues. So I strongly disagree with any assertion that I've been more at odds with the president of the United States than I have been in agreement with him.

Environmentalists agree that McCain has been a leader on global warming in his party. Yet they said his plan to cap greenhouse gases doesn't go as far as proposals from Democratic presidential candidates, Senators Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois.

Remember, the issue here isn't whether or not he is an environmentalist or if his environmental policies meet your standards, but whether there are differences from Bush.

Ah yes, ThinkProgress.org, the bastion of fair reporting. It is a well-established fact that McCain wasn't a fan of Rumsfeld (Source, if you actually need one). Do you think when a Senator calls the President's secretary of defense "one of the worst in history" that he matches closely with the President there?

Quote

Quote

I--the fact is that I'm different but the fact is that I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed.

That kinda thing happens when they're both Republicans. There's this whole Republican party platform and all that on which they're going to both have many more agreements than disagreements. Note that two people can agree on most things and yet still have significant differences.

The issue is not whether McCain deviated from President Bush 6 years ago, Cheeba, it's whether he deviates from his policies now (although in many, if not most, cases, he didn't deviate in the past either.)

Environment: As I've noted earlier, his weak cap-and-trade program is his only deviation from Bush on environmental policy issues. Otherwise, there's no qualitatitive difference on the environment between their policies. Whether the single issue is sufficient to call him "substantially" different is up for debate, I suppose.

Supreme Court justices: Bob Novak is an op-ed writer, and not only does his piece predate the link I gave you by 5 months, it cites no sources for the claim that McCain likes Roberts, but not Alito. Regardless, McCain's public stance is that he wants more judges like Alito and Roberts, and that he believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned. e.g. he shares President Bush's interests.

Campaign Finance Reform: More bills than I care to count have been passed since 1972, and certainly one of the major ones, from 2002, has McCain's name on it. As my link demonstrates, he's implicitly repudiating his previous stances on the subject, bringing him into line with President Bush and the republican base. In the most recent lobbying/campaign finance reform effort, S. 1, Senator Obama voted in favor, and Senator McCain voted against.

Iraq war policy: If you look at the references from the Think Progress article, you'll find them unimpeachable - McCain supported the President's war planning until he launched his presidential campaign. Even the article you cite has a graf noting McCain's hypocrisy: "The comments were in sharp contrast to McCain's statement when Rumsfeld resigned in November, and did not address President George W. Bush's role as commander in chief."While Secretary Rumsfeld and I have had our differences, he deserves Americans' respect and gratitude for his many years of public service," McCain said last year when Rumsfeld stepped down."

The issue is not whether McCain deviated from President Bush 6 years ago, Cheeba, it's whether he deviates from his policies now

And yet you mentioned Kyoto to illustrate his similarities w/Bush. Way to move those goalposts. But yeah, you're right: when considering a presidential candidate one should completely discount his history and only look at current issues. That was sarcasm btw.

Quote

Environment: As I've noted earlier, his weak cap-and-trade program is his only deviation from Bush on environmental policy issues.

Yes, targeting a nearly 70% reduction in Greenhouse Gases is totally weak. That was also sarcasm, btw. And thank you for noting that it is a difference. That was not sarcasm.

Quote

Supreme Court justices: Bob Novak is an op-ed writer, and not only does his piece predate the link I gave you by 5 months, it cites no sources for the claim that McCain likes Roberts, but not Alito.

Novak is a conservative author, journalist, talking head, columnist, etc., arguing that McCain is not conservative enough, like many others have argued. You didn't see Limbaugh et al going apeshit after Bush when he got the nomination did you? But it happened for McCain. You think maybe that's because Bush and McCain are different?

Quote

Campaign Finance Reform: As my link demonstrates, he's implicitly repudiating his previous stances on the subject, bringing him into line with President Bush and the republican base.

The article you link gives you some damn good reasons why McCain isn't continuing the fight:

Quote

A longtime advocate for campaign finance restrictions, Meredith McGehee, said she believed Mr. McCain's decision stemmed from a desire to avoid criticism if he decides to forgo public financing during the Republican nominating contest.

"He does not want to be caught in a position where he can be accused, rightly or wrongly, of hypocrisy," Ms. McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center, said. She said Mr. McCain has pledged to abide by other campaign legislation he has proposed, even before it is enacted.

"I don't think he wants to lock himself into living by a bill, with a public financing system that's pretty broken,"she said.

Obama didn't opt for public financing. Is he in line with President Bush and the republican base as well?

Quote

Iraq war policy: If you look at the references from the Think Progress article, you'll find them unimpeachable

Yeah, they don't have an agenda or anything, do they. If you can't site a news source, don't bother. McCain does indeed support the war, as everyone knows. He did not support the handling of the war. This is the last time I'm going to repeat myself here. McCain called Rumsfeld one of the worst SoD's in history. Of course when Rumsfeld leaves he's not going to say, "don't let the door hit you in the ass." He's going to say something polite, like thank you for your service, which he did. And McCain wanted a troop surge before Bush wanted one.

There's really nothing more to say here and I'm pretty much done with this thread unless someone who is not totally high on kool-aid wants to make a decent point or argument.

Your posting style makes you too tedious to deal with in detail, so I'll cherry-pick the easiest one:

Quote from: Cheeba

Yeah, they don't have an agenda or anything, do they. If you can't site a news source, don't bother.

From the Think Progress article, of which I said "If you look at the references [...] you'll find them unimpeachable":

Quote

“But I believe, Katie, that the Iraqi people will greet us as liberators.” [NBC, 3/20/03]

“It’s clear that the end is very much in sight.” [ABC, 4/9/03]

“There’s not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shiahs. So I think they can probably get along.” [MSNBC, 4/23/03]

“This is a mission accomplished. They know how much influence Saddam Hussein had on the Iraqi people, how much more difficult it made to get their cooperation.” [This Week, ABC, 12/14/03]

“I’m confident we’re on the right course.” [ABC News, 3/7/04]

“I think the initial phases of it were so spectacularly successful that it took us all by surprise.” [CBS, 10/31/04]

“I do think that progress is being made in a lot of Iraq. Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course. If I thought we weren’t making progress, I’d be despondent.” [The Hill, 12/8/05]

None of your attempts to derail this thread have shown that McCain differs in his political perspectives in any major way from President Bush. I assume you're fine with that, because everything's going swimmingly domestically and abroad.

You think "high on kool-aid" is a personal attack? Seriously? If so that pretty much tells it all I think.

The totality of your career here speaks for itself, Cheeba.

So, in total, you're resting your evaluation of Bush v. McCain on McCain's support for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and his distaste for Donald Rumsfeld. I guess that leaves them at 98% similar. They'd presumably be top matches on eHarmony.